You
probably won't read this in any US paper, but the Brits aren't too impressed
with former Vice President Al Gore's sci fi flick, An Inconvenient Truth.
The British high court ruled Gore's Academy Award winning global warming
film cannot be shown in any public school in England without an explicit
disclaimer. The high court ruled that students must be warned that the
film is partisan, political advocacy, not a factual representation of
what is actually happening with the climate of the world. The disclaimer
must stipulate that misleading exaggerations permeate the film. The
court said the film contained far too many factual errors to be shown
in the public school system without a disclaimer. Makes you wonder which
ultra wealthy social progressives in the Rockefeller Foundation,
the Pew Foundation, the Carnegie Trust, the Nature's Conservancy
and the Sierra Club own the judges in the US courts, doesn't
it?

While
the US media is so completely protected by the 1st Amendment (unlike
the rights of Americans to worship God) that media outlets can continue
to claim that the 13% of the scientists in the US (most of whom are
paid by environmental organizations in whose best interest it is to
promote the myth of global warming as fact) actually represents the
majority view on the subject. When Al Gore, Jr.—one of the most dangerous
utopians in the world—refused to debate any of the climate change experts
from the Heartland Institute on the subject of global warming,
saying it was pointless to engage in their circus because "...the
debate is truly over," what Gore meant was that the world's most
powerful barons of industry and banking plan to use the myth of global
warming as the primary catalyst to force the nations of the world to
agree to world government, not that factual evidence proves that manmade
global warming is a fact.

Gore,
the darling of the Rockefeller Foundation and the sweetheart
of the oil industry-financed environmentalist movement, has become the
Paul Ehrlich of 2007. In 1968, Ehrlich, a zoologist with the University
of Kansas (who spent most of his life studying the habits of bees) used
the research notes of 18th century botonist Thomas Robert Malthus's
Essay on the Principles of Population, to conclude that, based
on 18th century technology, the world would be grossly overpopulated
by the year 2000, and that half of the world would be starving—and the
other half would be killing each other for what few morsels of food
remained.

David
Rockefeller, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie Trust
and the Ford Foundation got behind Ehrlich's book, "The Population
Bomb," purchasing thousands of copies to be given out in universities
and colleges all over the world to help fan the fires of global warming
that wasn't even slowed down by the ecoalarmist cries of global cooling,
and the fear that the world was entering a new ice age in the 1970s.

Ehlrich's
book was even more flawed than Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.
The premise used in The Population Bomb was based on the population
theories of Malthus (1766-1848). Malthus roughly calculated the population
of Europe then factored the average annual birth rates and estimated
longevity of people. Once he estimated the annual birth and death rates,
he began to generationally grow the population from the year 1800 to
2000. Then, based on the crop yields that existed in the 18th century,
Malthus calculated how much food would be available to feed the growing
population. As his computations began, Malthus computed the expansion
of farmland that would have to be cultivated to feed the growing population.
Then, as the population mushroomed, he was forced to reduce the available
farmland which Malthus envisioned would be overrun with dwellings to
house the burgeoning population. Based on early 18th century technology,
Malthus saw a vastly overcrowded, diseased, world polluted by the waste
of man and no longer able to sustain itself by the year 2000. An agricultural
armageddon.

Malthus
wrote his book two decades before the start of the industrial revolution,
and a century before the pharmaceutical revolution. Malthus could not
even begin to imagine the agricultural revolution in which farmland
would yield twenty to a thousand times what farms in 1800 produced.
Or the advancement of architectural technology that would allow man
to build super skyscrapers—and pack over 8 million people in a 322 square
mile area in New York alone. Malthus wrote from a primitive era. Ehrlich
didn't. Ehrlich, an educated man, had no excuse other than money for
cloning Malthus's work and calling it modern science. For Ehrlich's
"inconvenient truth," he was rewarded with a full professorship at Stanford
University, and was also awarded a fellowship at the American
Association for the Advancement of Science when what he should have
received was a fellowship in "The Sky Is Falling Society."

In
December, 1997 Ehrlich was interviewed by reporter Timothy Maier for
an Insight on the News article that appeared on Jan. 5, 1998. In the
interview, Ehrlich stood by his predictions, saying it was obvious that,
by the year 2000, the ecoalarmist rant would be proven true. Ignoring
his own lack of credibility since the world was not starving and people
were not killing each other for the few remaining morsels of food, Ehrlich
said: "Unless we have a big increase in the death rate, all of the
projections, even the most optimistic, show us adding another two-and-a-half
million people. It is slowing, but we are already in a situation of
near disaster. And the concern within the entire scientific community
is, of course, that unless we do a lot of things right, and start pretty
quick, we're going to be in deep trouble." First, note that Ehrlich
attempted to make it appear this was a consensus of the entire scientific
community—when only 13% of the scientists (those paid by the oil industry
or the environmental movement) believe there is a problem. Second, thanks
to carbon dioxide emissions—greenhouse gases—(that Gore blames for all
of man's problems) have increased crop yields to such a level that we
are able to produce enough food globally to feed the world...and will
continue to do so.

Unless,
of course, Gore's ecoalarmist advocacy plan works and carbon dioxide
emissions are curbed. Carbon dioxide is the food that plants feed on.
Remove carbon dioxide and you starve the plants reducing crop yields
everywhere. When you starve plantlife and deprive it of carbon dioxide,
the plants also stop producing oxygen—the basic element human's need
to live. In other words, if Gore gets his way, the doomsday catastrophe
he and Ehrlich are predicting will actually occur—but not because man-induced
global warming is a fact, because it is not. The catastrophe will happen
because social progressives, in charge of lawmaking, will legislate
a genuine, world-threatening crisis while trying to protect mankind
from an imaginary one that the oil giants need to drive up the price
of oil to obscene levels that will greatly curtail consumer usage while
protecting oil company profits.

The
case ended up in the British courts when Stuart Dimmock, the father
of a secondary school student objected to the school system forcing
his child to watch An Inconvenient Truth. The film, he argued, was full
of ecoalarmist and political bias, and factual errors about climate
change. Dimmock argued that the film should not be shown in England's
public schools without a warning label pointing out the biases and the
factual errors. Dimmock insisted that if the film was shown, presentations
of counter-evidence from the scientific community—87% of the scientists
which disagrees with the views of the ecoalarmists who believe the sky
is falling—should be shown as well. The court agreed that An Inconvenient
Truth "...is not simply a science film...but that it is a political
film." The court referenced letters by the United Kingdom's Department
of Education and Skills [DES] that was sent to every public school teacher
suggesting to them that "...[t]he debate over the science of climate
change is well and truly over...Our energies should now be channeled
into...moving to a low carbon future...Children are the key to changing
society's long term attitude to the environment. Not only are they passionate
about saving the planet, but children also have a big influence over
their own family's lifestyles and behavior."

The
public school systems, working under large grants from the oil, coal,
natural gas and timber industries (the fossil fuel industries), have
taken a page from the Soviet Union's, Communist China's and Nazi Germany's
playbooks. Stalin, Mao and Hitler realized that they would be forced
to fight a new revolution every generation if they did not take seize
control of the school systems of their nations so they could indoctrinate
the children to believe what they wanted them to accept as fact—even
when it was fiction. Generations of Soviets grew up believing Russian
scientists developed the steam engine, the first internal combustion
engine, the first airplane, and even the first traffic light. Dictators
in every country in the world who have managed to hold generational
power have done by indoctrinating the children into accepting the dictates
of totalitarianism as truth.

Fiction
becomes fact if it is repeated enough—and especially if it is taught
as science in our schools to grade school and secondary school children.
That is precisely why former Vice President Al Gore, Jr. can confidently
say, the debate is over. When the facts don't support either your premise
or your conclusions, and you have the power to do so, don't debate it—mandate
it.

The
British high court disagreed with the DES view that the debate is over.
The court referenced nine specific things that An Inconvenient Truth
distorted or simply blatantly lied about, noting countless other areas
where they felt falsehoods may also exist. The court concluded that
there are very credible scientific views that dispute Gore's premise
that humans are causing global warming.

In
addition, the court singled out Gore's ecoalarmist assertion that sea
levels may rise 20 feet in the foreseeable future due to the Antarctic
and Greenland ice melt, and that people are already evacuating Pacific
island nations due to the sea level rise. That statement is a bald-faced
lie. Gore also predicted that the oceanic "conveyer belt" that controls
the 53 different ocean currents (like the Gulf Stream current that warms
Northwest Europe and makes it more moderate than any other region of
the world on the same latitude) will simply stop working.

In
An Inconvenient Truth, Gore warns that "...man-made global
warming is really not a political issue so much as it's a moral issue...Our
ability to live is what is at stake. In the end, the debate over global
warming may well harm humanity by disturbing the environment, by forcing
the world's poorest people—2 billion of whom have never turned on a
light bulb—to use more expensive and technically challenging fuels who
also cause great harm."

In
Gore's universe, however, the good news is that transferring the carbon
dioxide pollutants—along with our jobs—to the underdeveloped third world
nations where the human capital needed by the barons of business and
industry to maintain their profits well into the 21st century, renders
those harmful emissions harmless. What's wrong with that picture? In
Gore's parallel environmental-friendly universe, factories in underdeveloped
third world countries to spew carbon dioxide, and the massive billions
of people don't generate enough body heat to raise the earth's surface
temperature. In Gore's world, that only happens in the industrial nations
with depleted populations where nasty factories churning out nasty black
clouds of greenhouse gases.

Gore
is right about only one thing. The world is going through a period of
climate change. It does every 50 years or so, every 100 years or so,
every 1,000 years or so, and more dramatically, every 10,000 to 100,000
years or so. Gore's version of global warming is pure Tennessee bunk.
Global warming is real, but it is not a threat to mankind. Not today,
not next week, and not even a hundred years from now. Global warming
(and cooling) is caused by cyclic solar activity and intergalactic gases.
Research on the sun's role in global warming was reported in the October,
2003 issue of Astronomy & Geophysics. By studying solar activity
over the last 11,000 years, the British Antarctic Survey predicted that
the sun's contribution to global warming will decrease over the next
100 years. What that means is that the world is heading into a cooling
phase. So much for Gore's inconvenient truth, which turns out to be
a convenient lie.

Throughout
the 20th century, solar flares, sunspot activity and geomagnetic storms
on the sun increased in number and strength. According to Astronomy
& Geophysics, "...this rise is simultaneous with emissions of greenhouse
gases and an estimated increase in solar heat output, which together
have warmed Earth's temperature by a global average of 0.7° centigrade."
Science Daily concluded, from their studies that solar activity is about
to peak. Astronomy & Geophysics predicted there will be far less solar
activity in the 21st century. This will result from fewer space storms—which
are predicted to decline by as much as two-thirds. That means as we
reach mid-century, around 2050, we will be experiencing global cooling
and the ecoalarmists will then be screaming that we are entering a new
ice age and its all man's fault. Too many people left the refrigerator
door open when they were looking for midnight snacks.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

While
Gore refused to comment on the British high court's decision, Gore spokeswoman
Kalee Kreider attacked Stuart Dimmock in a Washington Post op-ed
piece, raising the question how a simple working class father raises
the type of money needed to launch a lawsuit against Gore and the United
Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The rest of us
should be asking how a simple working class Brit can scare the UN enough
that it would feel obligated to join a simple parental right lawsuit
to respect a father's wishes that his child not be brainwashed with
Gore's SCI fi fantasy.

Jon Christian Ryter is the pseudonym of a
former newspaper reporter with the Parkersburg, WV Sentinel. He authored
a syndicated newspaper column, Answers From The Bible, from the mid-1970s
until 1985. Answers From The Bible was read weekly in many suburban
markets in the United States.

Today, Jon is an advertising
executive with the Washington Times. His website, www.jonchristianryter.com
has helped him establish a network of mid-to senior-level Washington
insiders who now provide him with a steady stream of material for use
both in his books and in the investigative reports that are found on
his website.

Gore
is right about only one thing. The world is going through a period of
climate change. It does every 50 years or so, every 100 years or so, every
1,000 years or so, and more dramatically, every 10,000 to 100,000 years
or so.